in_get_clientRetrieves a single client by ID along with contacts and optional related records, helping you inspect client details and linked data in Invoice Ninja.
Fetch a single client by id, including its contacts and (optionally) related records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Client id (hashed string id, not the display number). | |
| include | No | Relationships to side-load, e.g. 'invoices,documents'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest — and it does disclose useful behavior: the response includes contacts by default and can optionally side-load related records. It does not cover error behavior for a missing id, but the core read semantics and payload shape are surfaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and lookup key, with the payload detail trailing. Nothing is redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what identity key to use and roughly what comes back (contacts, side-loadable relations). Only the failure case (unknown id) and the exact response envelope are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the hashed-id caveat and the 'invoices,documents' format example. The description reinforces the meaning of 'include' by framing it as related records, but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single client by id') and scopes it to one record, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling in_list_clients. It never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'by id' — you use it when you have a client id and want one record rather than a list. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of in_list_clients as the alternative for browsing/searching, and no note about what happens when the id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.